Paul Leach wrote:
>> [...]
> I think of two kinds of "relative URLs" -- "dir/foo.html" and
> "/dir/foo.html". The latter is relative to (e.g.) http://www.xxx.com, the
> former to the URL of page in which it appears (typically). I don't think the
> former belong in a domain list.
>
> > Here's the wording at issue (Sect. 3.2.1):
> > If a URI is relative, it is relative to [the] canonical root
> > URL of the
> > server being accessed.
> >
> > My notion of a relative URL is one that does not begin with '/'. For
> > such a URL, wouldn't it make sense to give them an implicit
> > '/' prefix?
>
> How about I say that URI in "domain=URI..." must be an "http_UTL" or
> "abs_path" as defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP/1.1 spec?
> The former is the usual "http://www.xxx.com:port/dir/foo.html" type; the
> latter is "/dir/foo.html".
That's much clearer. Sold.
Dave Kristol